Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewEurope PMCOpen access

Using biomaterials to improve mesenchymal stem cell therapies for chronic, nonhealing wounds

Keshavarz R., Olsen S., Almeida B.

Narrative Review on Chronic Wound, Immune Modulation, published in Bioeng Transl Med (2024) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Narrative Review
Journal
Bioeng Transl Med (2024)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
38193114
PMCID
PMC10771568
DOI
10.1002/btm2.10598
Citations
15

Abstract (original English)

Historically, treatment of chronic, nonhealing wounds has focused on managing symptoms using biomaterial-based wound dressings, which do not adequately address the underlying clinical issue. Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) are a promising cell-based therapy for the treatment of chronic, nonhealing wounds, yet inherent cellular heterogeneity and susceptibility to death during injection limit their clinical use. Recently, researchers have begun to explore the synergistic effects of combined MSC-biomaterial therapies, where the biomaterial serves as a scaffold to protect the MSCs and provides physiologically relevant physicochemical cues that can direct MSC immunomodulatory behavior. In this review, we highlight recent progress in this field with a focus on the most commonly used biomaterials, classified based on their source, including natural biomaterials, synthetic biomaterials, and the combination of natural and synthetic biomaterials. We also discuss current challenges regarding the clinical translation of these therapies, as well as a perspective on the future outlook of the field.

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.

Evidence level

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

How we grade evidence

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research